Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Bailey (cricketer)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Bailey (cricketer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given the large amount of information of information about leagues such as the East Anglian Premier League and others on CA, I wonder if further information can be found in locally-based print sources of the era... Bobo . 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of being notable. Profile article. scope_creep^Talk 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a fact that in many cases there is a black hole for online researching (largely the only sort possible in present circumstances) from local press, after the BNA record of most such papers runs out and before archives of internet-era articles (as can be found on Infotrac Newsbank) begin. The BNA does need more coverage of contemporary history. But even if that weren't the case, I doubt whether the subject of this article would be notable: the coverage almost certainly would be WP:MILL. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.